Breast Cancer, or Unnecessary Radiation Exposure and Overdiagnosis Risks? The Choice May be Yours

Pain, nausea, uncomfortable skin reactions, hair loss, partial or full breast removal, spread of cancer cells, death—all conditions from which you’d rather prevent yourself or a loved one, right? Imagine if medical professionals recommended a diagnostic test that could allow such outcomes to be prevented, and then—seven years later—said to wait another decade instead.

In November, women ages 40 and younger encountered the exact scenario, which refers to the consequences and preventive testing of breast cancer, a disease expected to appear in around 192,370 new cases and 40,170 deaths among women by 2009’s end, according to the American Cancer Society’s Facts and Figures publication.

In 2002, the U. S. Dept. of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality‘s Web site released guidelines from the U. S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) suggesting that all women above age 40 receive annual to biennial mammography screening, which the National Cancer Institute’s Web site describes as a low-dose x-ray procedure that provides an image of breast tissue and that can detect cancerous growths that are too small or too early in development to be distinguished by physical examination. Eager to take the preventative measure, given the disease’s severity, many women complied.



An update to the recommendation, however, was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2009, revealing the USPSTF’s advising only women ages 50 to 74—and others with particular risks, such as family history of breast cancer—to undergo mammograms, and to do so biennially. The new suggestions sparked a controversy on individual and political planes as women were revealed the conflict between which holds greater risk: prolonging the possible early detection of breast cancer or exposing themselves to potentially harmful radiation and increased chances of overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment.

Upon hearing the news, for example, 48-year-old Christina Paone found herself torn; while a friend of hers detected the disease at 43 via mammography—which would not have happened had she followed the new suggestions—Christina had also seen her father fall victim to radiation exposure, developing pulmonary fibrosis triggered by radiation from lung cancer treatment.

The study through which the USPSTF supports their suggestions observed negative effects of mammograms which, often misunderstood by the public, did not focus on radiation. According to the study, also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers looked at false-positive mammograms, unnecessary biopsies, and overdiagnosis, finding that such nonessential treatment often occurred more frequently among women ages 40 to 49.

Despite the paranoia that erupted, professional and political opinions were skeptical; the American Cancer Society’s Web site reveals a statement by Otis W. Brawley, M.D., their chief medical officer, in which he advises women to abide by the previous recommendations. Likewise, on December 2, the Senate voted not only to withhold the older regulations, but also to require health insurance plans to cover mammograms for women age 40 and older, reveals an article on the Associated Press’ Web site.

While women may take comfort in the Senate’s decision, the controversy over the recommendations highlights other issues, particularly pertaining to communication between doctors, patients, and media. Ned Calonge, physician and chairman of the USPSTF, explains in an American Academy of Family Physicians article that the new guidelines were misinterpreted and admits that such was due to the USPSTF’s failure to clarify that they advised only against routine mammograms for 40- to 49-year-old women.

Also concerned with communication barriers, Diane Berardi worries that as she continues to approach the ages around which mammography is concerned, her autonomy as a patient could be compromised. Explaining that while today, she could choose to receive a mammogram covered by her insurance but that future amendments could prevent such, she says, “Someone who I don’t know and who doesn’t know me could be making that choice and determining my future.”


Normal breast tissue cells (left) and cancerous cells (right)

On November 30, UC philosophy professor Dr. Florka held a discussion themed “Addicted to Mammograms,” during which students looked at articles that highlighted how mammography risks were actually nothing new but remain ignored advice and how the recent controversy relates to other preventative medicine risks, like those of cervical cancer. Dr. Florka pointed out the significance of analyzing how the false-positive diagnosis risk compares with the number of breast cancer cases mammography actually prevents, which one of the articles—from The New York Times—explains to be an indicator of far too much screening.

Due to the campus’ large number of students pursuing medical and legal careers, perhaps their concern with the issue isn’t surprising, and considering the enormity of current health reform deliberation, it is certainly not unwarranted.

HPV Vaccine: “One Less” Reason for Some to Think That Protection’s Necessary?

If you’re female, then there’s a good chance that you’ve either heard of or been offered the Gardasil® shot, the human papillomavirus (HPV)-preventive vaccine widely administered in America since 2006. While the targeted population of Gardasil® recipients does not include the entire UC community, the physical and ethical consequences that surround the vaccine may pose reason for concern by any and could considerably affect society beyond those who receive it.

Advertised as means of preventing cervical cancers, cervical abnormalities that could lead to cancer, or genital warts, the vaccine is now routinely recommended by physicians to all 11- and 12-year-old girls, according to the recommendations available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s Web site. Even if the recipient isn’t sexually active yet, how could any medicine that fights severe symptoms of a sexually transmitted infection (STI) and that’s considered “safe” by the CDC be undesirable? Why wouldn’t you want your self, sister, girlfriend, friend, or anyone else eligible for the vaccine to be protected from a potentially deadly disease if it’s preventable?

Let’s start with the physical ramifications. Between the vaccine’s initial introduction in 2006 and Sept. 1, 2009, the CDC has linked 15,037 adverse events to the shot—such as fever, vomiting, fainting, and seizures—according a Sept. 30 report on their Web site. Of these, 7% were considered serious, encompassing a number of deaths that resulted from viral illness, pulmonary embolism, cardiac events, diabetic ketoacidosis, atypical Guillian Barré Syndrome, juvenile amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, or “Lou Gehrig’s Disease”), and other unknown causes. Also, an article in Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) entitled, “The Risks and Benefits of HPV Vaccination,” reveals that having not been vastly administered until 2006, the vaccine’s effects that could appear twenty to forty years from now are unknown.

You may be thinking, “True, but every medication has side effects,” and while that may be accurate for many drugs in physical terms, the HPV vaccine also poses a moral dilemma. What exactly is the message being sent to the 11- and 12-year-olds being treated for cervical cancers and genital warts that won’t develop until they become sexually active? At 11, I did NOT have a knowledgeable grasp on a condom’s importance in protecting against STIs, nor was I offered information along these lines—or others, besides that the shot was “safe”—when encouraged to receive it at age 20 by my primary physicians.

Ursinus Wellness Coordinator Denise Walsh explains that Dr. Doghramji, MD, the campus Medical Director, could administer the vaccine with a prescription from one’s physician, and Wellness’ section of UC’s Web site states, “We strongly recommend immunization for HPV.” Wellness, however, offers over 10 different brochures and other print information sources, which not only allow the patient to make an informed decision on vaccination, but also are accompanied by free condoms and stress the importance of protected and responsible sex.

Mary Cantwell, a senior at St. Joseph’s University, notes that because of the school’s Catholic affiliation, “they don’t promote premarital sex, so condoms aren’t offered on campus. Regardless, most of my friends and I refuse the shot because we’ve heard horror stories about it.”

The CDC, Gardasil’s® marketing department, and other government sources who encourage the immunization have no way of knowing how each physician presents the vaccine—with little to no information? with Gardasil® pamphlets, condoms, and a lecture on getting tested for STIs? Additionally, Gardasil’s® Web site is strongly geared toward parents, playing on their concern for their daughters by interweaving statements such as, “You do everything you can for your daughter…it’s not too early to be thinking about a vaccine for cervical cancer for her.” With the notion that cervical cancer could take their daughters’ lives and with persuasion from physicians—but without necessarily knowing the studies and reports that indicate the vaccine’s questionable safety—parents may feel guilty for not having their daughters vaccinated.

UC senior Kira Oldham-Curtis explains, “I remember fighting with my mom over the shot. I didn’t think it was necessary, and she said that I should just get it anyway.”

Supposing that females and/or parents were encouraged by physicians to research the vaccine’s details before deciding in its favor, they would be interested to discover that it may not be due all the hype that it gets. It only immunizes against four HPV strains out of at least fifteen that can cause cancer and at least one hundred overall, according to the aforementioned JAMA article. Perhaps America should focus less on developing immunizations against preventable diseases and more on educating target recipients—preteens, teens, and young adults—on taking a responsible approach to sex that would help to eliminate STIs’ spreading instead.

On a Campus That’s Encountered MRSA First-Hand, Will You Honor Its Awareness Month?

Last year, an unwelcome visitor—methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)—made its infectious way through a portion of Ursinus’ student body. On October 2, 2009, MRSA awareness went global; the MRSA Survivors Network declared it World MRSA Day, an event created to spread the knowledge that MRSA is a serious and potentially fatal infection.

World MRSA Day was launched with an International Press Conference at Loyola University in Chicago, IL on the previous day. According to World MRSA Day’s official Web site, the October 2 event would “give survivors a voice,” allowing them to share their stories in an effort to raise awareness. A candlelight vigil was held in Salt lake City, UT, for those whose lives were taken by MRSA, and a collage was compiled from photos sent by families of deceased victims.

The day’s activities were arranged by the MRSA Survivors’ Network, an organization begun in 2003 by MRSA survivor Jeanine Thomas that is dedicated to raising awareness, to educating, and to preventing MRSA infections worldwide by promoting collective efforts toward ending the disease, according to World MRSA Day’s Web site. “The hundreds of thousands of lost souls who were allowed to slip away…haunted me,” Thomas says, “and I wanted their deaths to be not in vain.” A United Kingdom organization, MRSA Action UK, worked with the MRSA Survivors’ Network to promote the event. Their Web site explains that October 2 was chosen in honor of the date on which MRSA was discovered in London in 1961, though awareness efforts extend throughout October as World MRSA Awareness Month.

Thomas, also a national spokesperson, expert, and consultant on MRSA, has even turned to the White House for support. In a letter featured on the MRSA Survivors’ Network Web site, President Obama addresses her suggestion for increased MRSA hospital infection research funding, which would seek prevention of MRSA contraction due to individuals’ hospital visits for other problems. He writes, “This is simply unacceptable, and perhaps greater transparency of hospital infection rates would…incentivize hospitals to clean up their act. I hope that the Federal and State governments will make addressing this public health concern a greater priority.”

The goal of October’s events raises an interesting query; do people understand how serious MRSA is? During the outbreak on campus last year, students—especially athletes and athletic-facility users—were exposed to emails and flyers that warned against MRSA’s risks and offered prevention tips. Many, however, were more disgusted by the disease than afraid that it could take their lives. Sophomore Andrea DeToro says, “Sports like wrestling or gymnastics involve mats that a lot of people share. I figured that if one of my teammates got it, we all probably would. Gross."


Students are not alone in underestimating MRSA’s dangers. The Mayo Clinic Web site explains that a strain of the bacteria Staphylococcus aureus emerged years ago in hospitals, where doctors learned of its resistance to the antibiotics being used to treat it. As it became prevalent in hospitals and other healthcare facilities, many believed that MRSA was nonexistent elsewhere. By 1990, community-associative MRSA—that which evolved beyond health care facilities—was known, and its occurrence is progressing.

Patricia Devlin, registered nurse and mother of a football player who contracted MRSA due to teammates being inappropriately prescribed antibiotics, explained in an interview, “The hospital had us read extensively and perform skills labs dealing with MRSA. It’s rising in the community, especially in athletics, in fitness facilities where towels and equipment are shared, and in people with weakened immune systems.” She also reveals that, like many sexually transmitted infections (STIs), MRSA carriers are not necessarily symptomatic; outbreaks may only show up in those to whom they spread the infection.

The Mayo Clinic’s Web site suggests washing hands carefully, avoiding sharing personal items, covering wounds, showering after practices, sitting an athletic event out if you suspect infection, getting tested, and taking antibiotics appropriately. The measures are preventative efforts to consider whether you’re concerned that your classmate or teammate might be a carrier or you simply want to acknowledge World MRSA Awareness Month in honor of the millions taken by the disease.

Dining Services Receives a Makeover In and Out of the Kitchen

Students returned to campus this fall to find that Wismer had undergone a bit of a makeover; however, its menu boasts some pretty sizable remodeling, too. Not only has Wismer, Ursinus’ cafeteria-like dining hall, heightened the variety of food selections offered, but it has also adopted a stronger presence of nutritional options.

Previous years’ Wismer diners may recall the hall’s former setup, which featured an octagonal salad bar at its center. The lettuce and salad toppings composed about ½ the octagon, while the other held a small organic section, a bread and bagel section with a toaster, and a section with the foods and condiments to put on them. Accepting a larger group of incoming students than ever before, Ursinus relocated the large centerpiece—replacing it with more dining space—to a dividing area between the central dining vicinity and the previously dubbed “cove” area. The new salad bar is lengthier, offers more soup options, and has a staff member who mixes a daily featured salad upon a person’s request. Unlike Jazzman’s Café, located downstairs, salad cravers don’t have to skimp on their nutrient-rich veggies or their proteins to avoid surpassing meal credit prices.

The section also features several whole-grain options, such as barley or quinoa, which were rarely offered before and which are sometimes mixed with fruits, vegetables, or oils. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, who suggests whole grain consumption as fulfillment of the Food Pyramid’s “grains” component, even offers the mixed-dish preparation as a way to encourage personal or others’ whole grain intake. Also located at the salad bar, the new organic section features more consistent vegetable options than previously and, along with the non-organic salad section, has become more vegetarian-friendly by offering alternative protein sources, such as beans and tofu, daily.

The hall has also added a deli section, which offers hot, cold, and breakfast sandwiches prepared for each individual’s order, an assortment of bread types—more whole grains!—side dishes such as coleslaw, and, like salads, a featured sandwich that varies daily.

On its company Web site, Sodexo—Dining Services’ food provider—explains, “A balanced diet is an essential part of your students' overall health and well-being.” While Wismer diners are not simply handed a well-balanced meal, they are—due largely to the recent changes—provided with an array of selections with which to prepare their own.

Ursinus’ healthful changes extend beyond Wismer. Through a considerably revamped Web site, Dining Services enables students not only to preview Wismer’s menu for the current week, but also to view which items offered will be vegan- or vegetarian-friendly, carb-friendly, and/or well-balanced. Additionally, many items on the menu can be clicked to reveal a pop-up of their nutrition facts and, in some cases, ingredients. The site also offers a calculator through which any offered food items’ nutrition contents can be seen (that is, Wismer or Zack’s foods), a body mass index (BMI) calculator, a link through which questions can be emailed to Sodexo’s Registered Dietician, and a variety of additional links to health-related Web sites. Furthermore, Dining Services’ site offers a tip-of-the-day, such as “Eat an Apple! A 3" Diameter Size is the Original 100 Calorie Snack!”

While efforts to make healthy food options more available to the Ursinus community have clearly been implemented, many still have concerns—particularly with regards to Zack’s Food Court. Sophomore Elle Kurz says, “I wish Zacks’ healthy foods weren’t so expensive. It costs so much more to get a salad than chicken nuggets.” An immediate solution to the popular concern has yet to be offered, but the dilemma is not specific to Zack’s. According to a 2007 study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, low-energy-density foods (i.e. whole grains, lean meats, low-fat dairy, fruits, and vegetables) are more expensive per kilocalorie and have increased in price disproportionately to their less healthy, energy-dense counterparts. Thus, while Dining Services strongly encourages student feedback year-round, perhaps students, faculty, or staff members might also consider working toward the change on a larger scale, where healthier eating choices may require more sacrifice than just dining dollars.

How about a Universal Care-for-Your-Health Plan?

Healthcare reform is one of the most heated issues of debate and concern in current U.S. politics, and opinions about President Obama’s intended changes span over every inch of the spectrum, from total support for universal healthcare to complete opposition. While supportable arguments can be posed from each side, an interesting and somewhat tangential question is raised: isn’t there any way to minimize the initial need for so much healthcare coverage to begin with? Vaccinations have made their way into political discussion, but company employers and others have found means of encouraging lifestyle changes that can confront health issues before they even emerge.

An increasing number of businesses are now offering a variety of incentives and ultimatums regarding their workers’ lifestyles. According to a review by the Harvard School of Public Health, employers are enforcing tobacco-free policies both on and off the job, reimbursing for gym memberships, offering cash or gift card incentives, free health coaching, and insurance-premium discounts to workers who meet health standards, and many provide a number of other rewards to encourage better worker health. On a campus with a large percentage of athletes and a well-equipped fitness center and athletic facility, wouldn’t you like to get paid for working out? In the midst of an obesity epidemic and an economic recession, wouldn’t insurance discounts for living healthfully be convenient? Knowing that my family’s insurance plan will stop covering me after graduation, I know that I’d definitely profit from the incentives—and be a little more motivated to work out!

As appealing as the ideas may sound to a health-driven employee, the benefits can be mutual. Employers are recognizing the advantages of improved employee health to their workforce and productivity. According to a Health Resources Online statement on the Research and Markets audio conference published in Business Wire in January 2009, “…challenges are on the rise for employers and health insurance plans, which is prompting even more predictions of growth in the wellness management profession.” They found that the skyrocketing employer healthcare costs, the obesity issue, the aging working population, and the baby boom generation’s impact on the workforce also contribute to predictions that the wellness and health promotion industry is growing.

Encouragement and a positive outlook, though, are essential to success. According to an article by IncentOne, a company that helps businesses with corporate health and productivity, there is an “art and science” to achieving goals through health incentives. Their Sr. Vice President of Health and Productivity solutions, Sue Lewis, advises offering some form of instant gratification—such as payment in portions—and rewards valued $100 or higher, finding such to be typically successful in keeping workers on board with their goals. She discourages disincentives, which punish workers for noncompliance, because they contribute to a negative atmosphere. Then again, I probably wouldn’t be thrilled knowing that a company could fire me for not kicking a bad habit in time or skipping a day at the gym!

Although the fact that Americans need monetary incentives to work out, eat healthier, and avoid harmful substances does not shine a flattering light on us, the solution—or at least contributor—of incentives may simply make sense. While a person practicing healthy lifestyle habits is still susceptible to thousands of ailments, he or she obviously decreases the chances of developing those for which smokers, obesity sufferers, alcoholics, drug users, and others unconcerned with maintaining proper health are at serious risk.

Our nation is experiencing an enormous demand for healthcare reform, and even President Obama, during his September 9 speech, admitted that his proposed healthcare plan would require four years to be fully implemented in order to function effectively. Individual efforts at adapting or working toward an overall healthier lifestyle, on the other hand, can begin as soon as possible, and they are at least a starting point on the path to more affordable healthcare for Americans.

While acts can be as simple as going for a walk or cutting back on junk food, if each American were to find a way to implement or encourage such changes, then small contributions—from nearly every social class—could combine into a much larger, healthy form of preventative healthcare. If we’re willing to have doctors stick needles in our arms to prevent illness, then why shouldn’t we consider cutting back on smoking or burgers?

Do Great Deals at the Bar Mean Bad News for Your Health?

Recently, UC’s Residence Life administrators offered social host training to help students monitor the safety and satisfaction of on-campus partygoers; however, some student alcohol risks may extend beyond those which begin at an Ursinus party. Studies are finding that when bars—particularly those near colleges and universities—offer specials on drink prices, their customers may be more likely to consume larger quantities of alcohol than if costs were higher.


In the most recent study, featured in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, University of Florida researchers recognized that while previous studies indicated alcohol costs being inversely proportional to alcohol consumption and alcohol-related issues, they typically did not focus on expenses specifically in a bar setting. Turning away from a general population setting to instead focus on college students’ drinking behaviors, Ryan J. O’Mara, MS, et al. interviewed 804 students departing from 7 different bar scenes near the university, collecting a survey and Breath Alcohol Concentration (BrAC) reading from each. The information provided the cost, number, size, and type of drink(s) consumed, allowing the researchers to calculate each student’s cost per unit of ethanol. They discovered a 30% decrease in a student’s risk of leaving a bar legally intoxicated, i.e. having a BrAC of 0.08 g or higher, to be linked to a 10-cent increase in ethanol’s cost per gram when purchased there. In other words, according to students’ self-assessments of their alcohol expenses and intakes, higher drink prices at bars typically led to students’ drinking less while there and thus leaving less intoxicated.

One might argue that the study shows a basic supply-and-demand economic concept or that, being permitted into a bar, the students are likely to be at least 21 years old and thus accountable for their own actions regarding alcohol consumption. A 2003 study published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, however, concluded that “the ‘wet’ alcohol environment around campuses—including lower sale prices, more promotions, and alcohol advertising at both on- and off-premise establishments—was correlated with higher binge-drinking rates on the college campuses,” according to authors Meichun Kuo, et al. Thus, while drinks—like many consumer-bought items—may be enticing in greater numbers when offered at lower prices, other problems that the resulting intoxication can cause remain with the student once he or she returns to campus.


The studies’ findings may not be far from home for Ursinus students. Does the Trappe’s “silver coin night” sound familiar? Conveniently located on the local tavern’s Web site, a “Specials” menu features an array of happy hours and discounts on drinks or drinks purchased in large quantities, e.g. pitchers. The page also offers cover charge-free entrance fees for all nights except Fridays or Saturdays. Thus, despite Thursday’s popularity as a drinking night for college students and the Trappe’s random dispersal of local band performances throughout the week, students can see the bands free of charge on the same night that several drinks are significantly discounted—another potential motivator for drinks to be consumed in higher numbers.

UC senior Kira Oldham-Curtis, 22, agrees that O’Mara, et al.’s conclusions make sense. “It really is a rip off to get a drink at the bar,” she says.
Also citing that discounted drinks and their advertisements have been linked to college students’ alcohol consumptions, Harvard School of Public Health researchers Elissa R. Weitzman, et al. note that, “Features of local alcohol economics, in addition to characteristics of drinkers, may influence drinking behavior among college students,” according to a Health and Place article. In other words, while reduced drink prices may tempt students to purchase more of them, the student’s drinking characteristics regardless of expenditures continue to play a role. Nonetheless, O’Mara et al. view their findings as a suggestion that regulating drink discounting by on-premise drinking establishments, such as bars near colleges or universities, may be a beneficial tactic in reducing the intoxication levels of the students who leave them.

Is the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant Damaging More than Just Our Eardrums?

Imagine that you’re back in the first week or two of your first year at Ursinus’ campus (which, I realize, may have been earlier this month). Around 2:00 P.M. on that September’s first Monday, you were perhaps in a dorm, in class, at work, at practice, or someplace else. Why would you remember such a specific moment?

Well, each year, Ursinus freshmen are introduced to a blaring sound that disturbs napping hours, forces a momentary pause in teachers’ lectures, or sends some who’d never heard it before into panicked confusion over the noise: the Limerick Nuclear Power Plant’s Emergency Alert System. Although disruptive, the monthly 2:00 P.M. sounding tests the alarm that would be set off if an evacuation became necessary for residents within the plant’s 10-mile radius. Situated 21 miles northwest of central Philadelphia, it houses 2 of the 13 nuclear reactors within 90 miles of the city, equating Philly with northern Illinois as an area with the largest concentration of reactors in the nation, according to Exelon Nuclear, who owns the facility. Whether the statistic fascinates or bores you is irrelevant; the more critical detail is the emissions that the reactors produce and their potential effects on our health, given the plant’s close proximity to our campus.

Limerick’s power generating station houses two General Electric Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs)--one that has operated since 1986 and one since 1990--according to the Energy Information Administration. According to Exelon, they can produce enough power to provide electricity to over two million average American homes. The company also indicates that the facility exemplifies both technologic and economic advancement, costing less to operate than other forms of electrical plants and contributing sizably to Montgomery county through taxes, wages, and sponsorship toward community events. In fact, they presented a $150,000 check—the first portion of a $500,000 donation—to Limerick Township in February to benefit its parks and recreation department, police department, and fire companies, according to What's the 422? writer David Powell.

Such advantages, however, may come at another cost to area residents. An arguably environmentally-efficient energy source, nuclear power prevents 700 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions—equivalent to exhaust from about 100 million cars—per year, a comparison raised by Dr. Magdi Raghed in Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering. At a visit to the plant in 2006, former U.S. President George W. Bush highlighted Dr. Raghed’s point and added, “…nuclear power is safe…” and encouraged increased construction of nuclear plants. A study published in 2003 in The Science of the Total Environment, however, challenges Bush’s optimism, revealing in-body radioactivity levels in area residents that correlate with nuclear radiation exposure.

The study measured levels of strontium-90 (Sr-90), one of the radioisotopes of nuclear fission, in teeth donated by residents of states near nuclear reactors and by a small number from some with no reactors. The researchers, belonging to the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), focused on residents born after 1979, allowing them to rule out effects of former atomic bomb testing. Their findings showed repeated patterns of—GET THIS—consistently higher Sr-90 levels for those closest to our neighbor, the Limerick plant, than elsewhere. Of the 5 states—plus one smaller group representing other states—from which residents donated teeth, Pennsylvania took the lead in Sr-90 concentrations. Even closer to home, each state and/ or group of states showed that counties within 40 miles of a nuclear reactor had noticeably higher Sr-90 levels than the rest of their state.

A corporation in Stowe, PA, called The Alliance for a Clean Environment (ACE), characterizes the plant as part of a “Toxic Triangle,” or trio of toxin- or pollutant-producing sources impacting the Greater Pottstown Area, the other two components being Pottstown Landfill and Occidental Chemical. The group has compiled statistics that reveal higher leukemia and lung, cervical, and childhood cancer rates in the Greater Pottstown Area than in Pennsylvania overall. While the numbers are somewhat dated, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides information on Sr-90 that correlates with some of ACE’s claims. For example, they explain that the chemical tends to deposit in bone and bone marrow and is linked to leukemia, bone cancer, and cancer of soft tissue near bones, and they state, “Risk of cancer increases with increased exposure to Sr-90.”

The EPA reveals that both municipal landfills and nuclear reactors make Sr-90 impossible to avoid in at least minimal amounts. When Kaitlin Andersen, a Kutztown University senior, admitted, “Those things were one of the main reasons I didn’t consider going to Ursinus. They seriously scare me,” she was referring to their intimidating size and monstrous clouds, while their toxic emissions—evidently—were the true place for concern.

A Sept. 1 notice offered area residents free potassium iodide pills to take in case of a nuclear accident (and yes, according to our Environmental Health and Safety Coordinator, Carol McMillan, Ursinus does have a supply!), and NBC Philadelphia titled the article “Get Your Worst-Case Scenario Pills." The worst case scenario, however, may be a never-found solution to the potentially carcinogenic strontium exposure.